UK Common Law Court issues arrest warrants

Arrest Warrants have been issued. Bothe the Prime Minister David Cameron and the monarch Queen of England have been charged with sexual crimes against
children as part of an international pedophile ring. This is not surprising as there is a worldwide connection being revealed by ex-clerics civil
servants and other whistle blowers that are coming forward with evidence to incriminate these and other members of church and state.

Now if memory serves me right, this is the same group that has already issued an arrest warrant for the Pope and wanted all of the Roman Catholics
Church possessions seized. I might be wrong, I could be thinking of a different group.

I'm not sure if they can actually arrest the Queen or Prime Minister but of the two, I could see the PM being arrested but I highly doubt the Queen
would be.

It's a real shame that those in power who knew about what was going on, will be getting away with it.

I do wonder if I will be seeing the fall of the Roman Catholic Church in my life....maybe even in a year or two. I just don't know how they can
bounce back from all this scandal.

First of all, the article states that it expects the matter to begin to be addressed in court, on the 15th of March 2014.

I have to say, there has been NO such proceeding, the Queen has not been arrested, nor has David Cameron. Oh, just an aside, no former military
officer, military police or otherwise, would accuse or conspire in the arrest of, the Queen of England. That would be exactly as impossible as a
priest trying to arrest the Pope.

Utter rot. David Cameron is scum, but he is scum because of the policies he promotes and the way he thinks about society, not because he is
personally responsible for horrors being inflicted on children. The Pope is scum, but he is scum because he believes that he is permitted to stand
between Jesus, and his people. The Queen however, is a balls out monarch, who has done more for the people of her country, than anyone gives her
credit for. She drove ambulances during the Second World War, around a crater strewn London, during the worst bombing raids one could imagine, dodging
bombs and frag, just to rescue regular people from the horrors of the period.

People need to wise up with regard to Her Majesty, and realise that she is not a blood drinking, baby killing maniac. I despair sometimes, I really
do.

further - I realise logic and walts don't mix - but he has been silly enough to demonstrate the utter absurdity of his alledged " court "

with the headline " proven guilty " - this coming from an alledged " court " that has not yet convened - so they have not been tried ` in-absentia
` - thus the aledged " court " has its verdict ready before the show trail has even occurred

The Queen however, is a balls out monarch, who has done more for the people of her country, than anyone gives her credit for. She drove
ambulances during the Second World War, around a crater strewn London, during the worst bombing raids one could imagine, dodging bombs and frag, just
to rescue regular people from the horrors of the period.

I'm an American, and even if someone gave me the authority, I wouldn't arrest any of your royals ... especially The Queen.

What the heck is goin' on over there anyway? Oh yeah ... I've got the Internet.

originally posted by: knoledgeispower
Now if memory serves me right, this is the same group that has already issued an arrest warrant for the Pope and wanted all of the Roman Catholics
Church possessions seized. I might be wrong, I could be thinking of a different group.

No, you are correct - except it is not a group, just a idiot making crap up and posting it from his mum's basement.

originally posted by: knoledgeispower
Now if memory serves me right, this is the same group that has already issued an arrest warrant for the Pope and wanted all of the Roman Catholics
Church possessions seized. I might be wrong, I could be thinking of a different group.

No, you are correct - except it is not a group, just a idiot making crap up and posting it from his mum's basement.

Well ... now I can sort'a-kind'a-maybe understand why. Doesn't make it right, but I could see the situation might have made a person or two lose
it just a little bit.

a reply to: knoledgeispower
These "warrants" have no value, because the people who issue them have no legal pr physical powers to enforce them.
I can appoint myself Lord High Executioner of Titipu and issue warrants in my own name, and they would have exactly the same significance.
This is just a meaningless publicity gesture, on the part of people who have got together round a P.C. and decided to call themsleves a court.

Many will be unable to appreciate the stupidity of issuing arrest warrants on the people concerned, on the charges as listed, but I would like to
illuminate this situation a little bit, to explain just how pants on head daft, this really is.

First of all, issuing arrest warrants when one is not a part of a judicial system with recongised powers of arrest, or the power to force a person to
be present in court, or indeed the power to instigate a criminal proceeding of any kind, is the mark of a passive aggressive, inefectual, and totally
deluded mind. One does not merely issue an arrest warrant on those who offend one. The International Common Law Court does not employ any legal
professionals, lawyers, clerks, or judges, so it has no teeth what so ever, no law enforcement agencies at its beck and call. Its every utterance is a
waste of breath.

Second, the practice of issuance of these "arrest warrants" detracts from the serious nature of the accusations made. If there was even the
remotest possibility that any one of the three accused parties, was indeed responsible for such acts as are being suggested, then the simple fact of
the matter is, that a fake court, issuing fake arrest warrants, merely deflects attention away from the people being accused and their possible role
in wrong doing, and toward the crackpot nutbar who issued the warrants in the first place.

Make no mistake, the real story here, is that there is a sad individual in a basement somewhere, who honestly thinks that his actions are making a
difference in the world. All those actions do in reality however, is point the spotlight upon the origin of the accusations, and to be honest, I
cannot blame people for being more interested in the origin, than the accusation in this matter, and all matters pertaining to the International
Common Law Court.

Clearly, the person who issues these statements, has no idea how the media work, and no idea how law works. Its a little disgraceful really, and very
sad.

I was pretty sure I was right in thinking that it was a group that had real no power. I thought I had recalled that from the last time they issued
arrest warrants for the Pope & wanted to cease all the assets of the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm a bit iffy about the Queen. Yes she has done great things in the past, like drive ambulances but I strongly think that she is the one behind
Princess Diana's death. I think she set it all up, including making Charles cheat on Diana with Camilla.

First off all, it is clearly obvious that these people (and some in this thread, see kuraijanai2013's post) have no idea what "Common Law"
is. The UK's legal system is based on Common Law - one of the few in the world - even though Parliament passes legislation in the form of
"statutes". The Judiciary then interpret this law, through cases brought before them, which in turn then becomes the precedent for that particular
law, becoming "Common Law".

A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar
facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions.

In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar
dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare
decisis).

If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"),
judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.

It isn't, unlike what these "Freemen" types would have you believe, some fanciful system of "just" laws from the days of good old King Arthur
when everyone was equal and maidens skipped through pastures while fairies played harps - this "UK Common Law Court" is nothing more than some
jumped up pretenders passing judgement on people they simply have no right too - ironically, breaching the "Common Law" rights of their fellow
citizens in doing so!

Origins of the Common Law
Common law is an invention of the English courts: the Kings Bench, the Court of Common Pleas and the Exchequer so as to ensure, as remains the case
today, that there were laws that superceded the decisions of the lesser courts.
Judges create the common law by delivering written judgments about the cases before them. If, for example, Magistrates’ Courts across England and
Wales were able to make and follow their own precedent, this would create a huge variation in local and regional customs that could mean that local
regimes are barely recognisable from one another.

The common law ensures that the law remains ‘common’ throughout the land. However, as it is the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) that create the legal precedent in relation to criminal matters in England and Wales, it is the decisions made by these higher courts that
bind the lower courts.

There are some situations that are entirely new in relation to the common law, and the English courts do sometimes look abroad at the decisions of
other commonwealth courts in order to seek direction or guidance from them. For example, an English court may be asked to consider a case decided in
Canada or Australia in the absence of there being any precedent set in an English court. This can also assist in allowing the common law system to
have a degree of flexibility but also, because courts look to each other for guidance, a certain level of stability too.

Common Law and Statute Law
Although the English legal system is founded on common law, that is not to say that statutes are any less binding. In fact, statute law codifies
certain rules whereas the common law provides interpretations, and clarification when facts of instant cases are applied to the codified law. As a
result, the common law and statute law complement each other well: common law keeps statute law up to date and in keeping with modern problems and
solutions, as well as creating precedent where there is no statutory codification.

It certainly seems that they have already "judged" the people the people they have arrest warrants for, which certainly is the wrong way to do
things. You arrest people first, hear their side of the story and then decide if there is enough evidence for a trial - you don't go into the process
having already decided someone is guilty, then issue an arrest warrant!

People like Kevin Annet are extremely frustrating. There are respectable people all over working tirelessly to uncover reliable evidence and
testimonies regarding this subject and this guy is just coming up with sensationalist, often made up stories with the usual conspiratorial rhetoric
like "Media not reporting" etc. It not only distracts people away from credible campaigners, but it wastes time and could be easily lapped up by
establishment figures who could feed stories into the media associating this guy with the anti VIP paedo movement. Even Russia Today wouldn't
interview him, that's got to be saying something.

The chances are, every now and then, he'll come up with something true; but when it's surrounded by so much falseness, and having such a ridiculous
name, I don't see the point of it other than to gain infamy.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.